notherplace93

Not only that, but also a large amount of outside literature was either neglected or not allowed, which means it isn't unreasonable to think there was a great deal written by or about individuals like Plato, Aristotle, Socrates..etc. But was no longer deemed important by "the church" and has been lost to the passage of time. Post-Rome Europe up until the renaissance looked much more like modern day Theocracies than we like to admit, where the bible was considered to be the only necessary literature as the Quran is in certain countries today. A lot of ancient literature of ancient Greece and Rome that we have was maintained or rewritten in Baghdad, which was the cultural center of the world at the time, from the 7th-10th centuries while Europe was careening backwards into darkness and stupidity. Hell, in the past decade we found a second hand copy of a book written by Archimedes solving many of the problems of mathematics that were not re-solved for another 2 millennia after his death....and its content had been erased and written over as a 12th century monks prayer-book, and they were only able to read archimedes writing based on technology we have today that illuminated the faint marks that had been erased. For thousands of years the Western World cared only for religious texts, so its no surprise that all we have are books upon books about this Jewish Rabbi. All other aspect of human thought was stagnant during this time.

The problem is the claims about Jesus are nothing less than extraordinary. And "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Granted there is much more information written about Jesus than any other historical figure, but most of it dates to at least (as mentioned earlier) to, at the very least, 30-70 years after his supposed death, and, more often than not, to almost 200 AD. Even in modern times, when first hand verification such as photography, incidents like Roswell still become urban legends of alien landings. So, even if the outlandish claims that are made about jesus are true, one has little to no justification to rationally accept them as anything more than hearsay or extrapolations of a legend of a man who may have existed in some form, but probably did little of what was said of him. So even though we have more writings about Jesus than we do about someone like Socrates, (who i wholeheartedly admit may not have existed) it isn't as much of an irrational jump to say its easier to believe Socrates existed than did Jesus, because nothing about Socrates life is anything that i wouldn't be able to observe occurring in modern times as well, for no claims of miracles or divine intervention are attributed to him. The evidence for Jesus being the Jesus we read of in the gospels is flimsy at best and cannot be accepted reasonably. Please note, I'm not saying the Jesus of the gospels could possibly have existed, but one has almost no comparable reason to accept it on anything that we would remotely call a reasonable basis. It can only be accepted in a certain Kierkegaard-ian fashion, where a "leap of faith" is clearly made.

The burden of proof is solely on the theist in this regard. It is the strongest atheistic argument for not believing in an Omni-benevolent deity. My biggest objections, which I've never heard answered or even discussed, are as follows, 1) Omni-benevolence/Omni-present Contradiction-If God is the ultimate being, postulated by Anslems Ontology, one of the aspects of this would be that he is Omni-Present as well as Omni-benevolent. Omni-presence would also indicate timeless-ness, as it would indicate fullness of presence, eternally, in every possible moment as well as in all possible realities, many of which never existed, nor ever will. However, monotheisms justify the doctrine of eternal punishment with the argument that an All-just as well as an All-Loving God cannot tolerate any Evil in his presence. However, if he is Omni-present, than evil has existed in the fullness of God's presence forever, and if he is eternally in every moment, he is eternally in the presence of evil. And this argument cannot be avoided by having two different definitions of Presence, for if presence is not full and complete in every moment, it ceases to be Omni, as well as violates Anslems Ontology, in any real way, and would cease to be the God of classical western theistic philosophy. 2) The Argument from Sufficient Moral Reason- This is William Lane Craig's favorite argument to combat the classic problem of evil. This has always struck me as at the very least Begging the Question, but even a bit circular reasoning. Because if God is bound in someway by a concept of moral necessity, then he ceases to be omnipotent in a meaningful way. Even if one argues that God must allow evil in order for Free Will to be possible, then Free will becomes the concept that God is bound by. But omnipotence cannot be bound in such a way, for if God is omnipotent, then the very concepts of Moral Necessity as well as free will are concepts he created. And if these concepts can exist independent of God's exist, how is he the ultimate being? Once again the ultimate being becomes too prone to paradox, and if he can be bound by paradox, then he isn't "omni." So the classic problem of evil still stands. "Either god cannot stop evil, and is thus impotent, or he will not stop evil, and is thus either capricious or indifferent" So, even if God's existence was validated by cosmological or teleological arguments, one would never be able to rationally believe he was omni-benevolent while at the same time being omnipotent or omniscient. It is simply too paradoxical to be accepted in anything other than a Kierkegaard-esque fashion. If a there exists an ultimate being, ultimate responsibility also follows for succeeding causal events.

Haha, definitely not calling you out, but it obviously wasn't enough of a waste for you to not post in it.

Hey, I'm no fan of Fox, but if we really wanna go back to what started sensationalism a.k.a yellow journalism, go all the way back to the late 1890's, read about the U.S.S. Havana and how we basically started a war with Spain based entirely on a series of conjecture articles that indicated Spain as being responsible for the ships sinking.

The thing that intrigues me is how honestly do we fix this? Anyone who still believes our economy relies on true free-market principles is just not looking. The capitalism we have in this country is crony capitalism. Just the other day, Mutual of Omaha won a 1.7 million dollar refund on an appeal of a property tax. Now i don't know the exact semantics or legal hurdles (which is what it all comes down to, the person with the best lawyer wins), but the problem we face is not that we have a certain party or certain group holding us down in power right now, its that power and money, as usually, have melded together at the top. I believe it was mentioned early in the thread regarding the candidate with the most money normally wins, and its very true. I was reading an article very recently that was revisiting the occupy wall street movement, and it talked about how over 50% of congress actually fits into the parameters of what we would call the "1%", and it was spread across both parties surprisingly evenly. It makes the actually dealing with the situation very difficult when the things that desperately need changed can only be changed by the people who have no incentive to change them

This is what i find so funny about Tea Partiers. As a libertarian, I'm fairly anti-government (and anti-corporate), but this eagerness to believe that there is some sort of well-organized conspiracy by the government to persecute them is hilarious. I mean, c'mon, ever been to the DMV? Based purely on the performance of that governmental institution i would say that there is no way in hell they could pull of such efficient attack on an extreme wing of a dying party.

Not to mention the attrition that happens EVERY year. We basically put ourselves at a disadvantage that is far worse than being located in NE. This one irks the s*&% out of me. We are already at a location/Talent disadvantage. Im all for giving scholarships to deserving walk-ons, but come on, use every advantage you can. For all the improvements Pelini seems to have made in the recruiting from this area still annoys me

You say two quality coordinators, yet the defense has largely been quite consistent through the year. Quite consistently in the very good range, even if not quite great, overcoming a 1/3 of its starters go down due to injury. Its never given up more than 31 points in a game, and that was aided by a garbage touchdown. Its the offense that has been largely up and down. 2012 called, i think it wants its then-credible argument back. (but at that point, one might argue that Beck was the more consistent assistant)

Eh. Idk. I think most posters understand why many aren't impressed. I just think you hit it on the head without realizing it that there posters on here, some of them quite respected, who seem to now preach a doom and gloom that many also don't quite see. I think it is just human nature to create a false dichotomy. From a purely utilitarian approach, one must remember that we are still 8-1, and that perception is still key. 35-14, even the ugliest 21 point win in the history of 21 point wins (seriously, it feels like we lost today, maybe in some ways, we did) is still an impressive enough win to keep us right where we were to start the day: right at #15 in the playoff rankings with a chance to win the Big Ten Title, which would help recruiting, which would continue to increase the talent/athleticism gap that we saw today between Nebraska and Purdue, which further helps us to win these kind of games: where we are clearly the better team and we win despite ugly, ugly play. So win posters heap only praises and never honest criticisms, or conversely preach only doom and gloom, we have a tendency to lash out at aforementioned poster. Some of us are just honestly not sure if losing our minds/sounding like brownie-gun holes on the internet is really going to help this team win inherently meaningless sports games, when in reality, were all just watching for entertainment value anyway.

Honestly ask yourself if you think Nebraska could stay within Auburn, Miss st, Notre dame, Florida st, Alabama or other wise. Yes or no, we're done here. Because one answer ands the thread, and the other ends the thread because you refuse perspective. I'd probably say we could stay within. Whether or not we would is another question. This Nebraska team, actually all of Bo Pelini's teams while here at Nebraska, have shown a tendency to be able to both beat anyone (No. 9 Michigan State in 2011, No. 7 Missouri and No. 17 Oklahoma State in 2010, a Miami game this year, that while still not great, is starting to look a bit more impressive every week) or be able lose any, and i truly do mean any, game (iowa state 2009, texas tech 2009, washington 2010, northwestern 2011, Wisconsin 2012, Minnesota 2013). So i don't know whether you basing an argument purely on the conjecture of playing teams not on our schedule, some of whom also have extremely unimpressive schedules, is anymore "perspective" (especially considering perspective is literally defined as "a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; A point of view") than the guy who chooses to look at this team as a team that, while not any where close to perfect, is still an 8-1 team that still has a CHANCE to do something great even if they don't take advantage of that chance. I think it is a known fact that we have played both down and up to different opponents at different times so much of your logic here is based on poor argumental tactics. For instance: I'm assuming (perhaps erroneously idk how you think) that if we were to be able to sum up our expectations for Bo Pelini and this team in one-word it would be: WIN (some may add while maintaining the university's integrity, but hey, that's not one word). Guess what? While it was ugly as hell, we still managed to do that. In fact, we've done it 8 of 9 times this year. Sometimes handily. Sometimes awfully. But hey purely from win percentage, the only stat that REALLY counts, we're are currently sitting better at 8-1 than we have been 10 weeks into the season that we were in either of 2011-2013 seasons. So, regardless of a patsy schedule, we've still managed to stay at least somewhat in the hunt for the playoffs, sometimes despite ourselves, when there are also quite a few teams in the FBS who also have lame schedules who have not managed to do the same. Thats not to say that we shouldn't expect more out of this team than what we are seeing, (which is I'm sure what your comeback will be, that "How far have we fallen that I, Nupolo8, have the only true expectations for what a husker football team should really be, all you other Husker fans just don't get it) its just saying that, despite ourselves, all of our goals are still available to us. Im really not trying to attack you as a poster or even as a person (we're both husker fans who just want to see Nebraska win), but as a poster who usually looks forward to your posts and tries to be a realist himself (and a bit of a contrarian haha) i feel as though your arguments have delved into the realms of special pleading, false dichotomy (this idea you are promoting, intentionally or unintentionally, that every husker fan seems to fall into either the unintelligent sunshine pumper category or the "realists" who see that the sky is falling because it clearly is), argument by question(For instance, "do you honestly think we would stay with team X? because I'm clearly right and you're clearly an idiot depending on your answer), reductive fallacy, Argument by dismissal (for instance "we're done here, honestly its a message board we're never gonna be done here haha), definitely guilty of holding tightly to the transitive property (we struggled against rutgers, which means we'll struggle against wisconsin, despite the fact that Wisconsin lost to northwestern, who we ended up handling), and while not lastly, simply the last one I'll mention, argument by vehemence, which is simply the very Fox News/MSNBC ideas of the person who is the loudest and grips the most, realistic or no, is somehow right. So while you may have legitimate grips towards Pelini and this sometimes incompetent, sometimes okay, sometimes fairly decent husker team, you lose in the only area it truly matters most, and that is record. 8-1 cannot realistically be argued against, despite how ugly (on one side of the ball mind you, pretty good games from both defense and ST) it may be.

Average at best? Im not saying he's the greatest thing since spiced bread (yep, i spelled it wrong but I'm going with it) but wasn't he All-Big Ten his sophomore year? And has 500+ yards already this year? That doesn't seem like average. Seems to play some of his best games against big opponents (ohio state 2012, Ucla 2012, Michigan State 2013, Miami 2014) It may not be great, but for an offense that doesn't throw a whole lot, and seeing how our offense has fallen apart when he gets hurt and coordinators don't have to respect the deep-threat anymore would make me call him anything but average. Give the guy his due- He probably falls into the above average-very good range for a college WR. I feel fairly certain calling him an average at best receiver is an ad hominem attack more directed at his antics of the field disguised as a legitimate (in reality just lazy and angry) evaluation of his actual play.

Damage control, from who? Some B12 bloggers talking about it? OH NOES! NO ONE on a national scale was talking about this, until Harvey Perlman decided it was a good idea to publicly criticize Bo, which was insanely retarded. Only then did this gain the attention it has had for a few days now. Without that, it is done. Now, because of that, Bo had to take the majority of Monday to apologize. Ok, it should be done then? Nope, our AD now needs to talk about it on Tuesday as well? WHY? Why does the issue need to be brought up AGAIN? Bo goes off on officials routinely. When his players screw up royally, he lights into him. His actions on Saturday where par for the course. Saturday was an example of the same guy he has been for 3 years. But suddenly, we need to 'control the damage'? What damage? The only damage we made is of the self-inflicted kind. The kind where Bo is ticked he has to defend himself to his own university now. The kind where other coaches across the country now have the perception we will not stick up for them. You want an example of how to stick up for somebody? Bo is getting full on blame after the game by local media, and now the national media for the Taylor incident. While Taylor was COMPLETELY to blame for that incident, what does Bo do? Downplay it and protect his player. THAT is how you take up for someone, and that is how you make it a smaller issue than it should be. Our AD should be bringing up the situation between Cotton and Jerod-Eddie, but nothing. They should be bringing up the situation with the officiating, but nothing. Instead, the media has focused in on Bo, Carl, and now even two of our players criticizing the officials? And what has our university done? Criticize our HC as well and nothing else. It's just stupid how we have handled this weekend, absolutely stupid. Hallelujah!!! The Voice of Reason!! I think everyone who is criticizing Bo needs to think of what they would have done in that sdituation. Probably would have been freaking out, probably most of us would have thrown a punch. So in my opinion, Bo held back more than i would have and most likely 90% of Nebraskans would have.(the other 10% being the ones who don't care whether or not Nebraska wins, Non-Nebraska fans living in Nebraska, and Mental Patients/Texas Fans This is who Bo is, would you rather have Bill-BlandFace-Callahan back? I don't

Sorry, i totally suck at typing.